London Uderground Song
 

You have most probably heard the song doing its rounds on the net but for
those who haven't here it is:

http://www.uffclub.com/dloads/london_underground.swf

Very, very rude. Don't show it or play it in front of the children, but very
funny :-)

London Uderground Song
 

"Andy" wrote in message
...
You have most probably heard the song doing its rounds on the net but for
those who haven't here it is:

http://www.uffclub.com/dloads/london_underground.swf

Very, very rude. Don't show it or play it in front of the children, but
very
funny :-)



ah...this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'funny' that I wasn't
previously aware of.

London Uderground Song
 

Andy wrote:
You have most probably heard the song doing its rounds on the net
but for
those who haven't here it is:

http://www.uffclub.com/dloads/london_underground.swf

Very, very rude. Don't show it or play it in front of the children,
but very
funny :-)

It has been discussed on this thread ad infinitum. If you're
interested have a search on the usenet archives on google groups.
There were some very strong and conflicting views on it!

--
Chris

London Uderground Song
 

ah...this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'funny' that I
wasn't
previously aware of.

Sounds like you're not aware off any usage of the word. The song is
amusing and
right on the money.

B2003

London Uderground Song
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...

ah...this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'funny' that I
wasn't
previously aware of.

Sounds like you're not aware off any usage of the word. The song is
amusing and
right on the money.


It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the NHS or
shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to work for or any
other frontline employee for the state of the company or organisation they
are employed by.

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...

ah...this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'funny' that
I
wasn't
previously aware of.

Sounds like you're not aware off any usage of the word. The song is
amusing and
right on the money.


It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the NHS
or
shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to work for
or any
other frontline employee for the state of the company or organisation
they
are employed by.

Yes it really isn't fault of the staff when they are on strike is it?

London Uderground Song
 

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:27:36 GMT, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the NHS or
shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to work for or any
other frontline employee for the state of the company or organisation they
are employed by.

Having viewed the item previously, I do not recall it making direct
attacks against front-line staff at all. Interpret as you will.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

London Uderground Song
 

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...

ah...this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'funny' that
I wasn't previously aware of.

Sounds like you're not aware off any usage of the word. The song is
amusing and
right on the money.


It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the
NHS or shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to
work for or any other frontline employee for the state of the
company or organisation they are employed by.

Yes it really isn't fault of the staff when they are on strike is it?

It takes two to tango.

London Uderground Song
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:27:36 GMT, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the
NHS or shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to
work for or any other frontline employee for the state of the
company or organisation they are employed by.

Having viewed the item previously, I do not recall it making direct
attacks against front-line staff at all. Interpret as you will.


I suggest you listen to it again. Then re-evaluate your interpretation.

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...

ah...this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'funny'
that
I wasn't previously aware of.

Sounds like you're not aware off any usage of the word. The song
is
amusing and
right on the money.


It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the
NHS or shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen
to
work for or any other frontline employee for the state of the
company or organisation they are employed by.

Yes it really isn't fault of the staff when they are on strike is
it?

It takes two to tango.

And only one to stop.

The only group of staff the song explicitly has a go at are the
drivers. It's the drivers who go on strike. It's the drivers who
cause many many hours of delays to people on strike days. etc.

So the drivers have directly caused the problem.

Doctors, nurses, etc. don't directly cause problems with the NHS

therefo Invalid comparison

London Uderground Song
 

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...

ah...this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'funny'
that I wasn't previously aware of.

Sounds like you're not aware off any usage of the word. The song
is amusing and
right on the money.


It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the
NHS or shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to
work for or any other frontline employee for the state of the
company or organisation they are employed by.

Yes it really isn't fault of the staff when they are on strike is
it?

It takes two to tango.

And only one to stop.

The only group of staff the song explicitly has a go at are the
drivers. It's the drivers who go on strike. It's the drivers who
cause many many hours of delays to people on strike days. etc.

So the drivers have directly caused the problem.

Doctors, nurses, etc. don't directly cause problems with the NHS

therefo Invalid comparison

Why do people go on strike?

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:
Why do people go on strike?

Not feeling confident / safe / strong enough to cross a picket line?

Or maybe because the RMT seems to be the most incompetent union. Other
unions (not just talking railways) seem to be able to negotiate the
reasonable things they want wheras the RMT seem to use strikes far too
often. Heck, next week two of the issues they are having a strike over
a

1. "...our members believe is the first step to exporting the
call-centre work overseas"

So they aren't striking over an actual issue just an opinion of
something which may become an issue in the future.

2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within TFL?
Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should I, a
taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need doing
before.

London Uderground Song
 

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Why do people go on strike?

Not feeling confident / safe / strong enough to cross a picket line?

Or maybe because the RMT seems to be the most incompetent union.
Other unions (not just talking railways) seem to be able to negotiate
the reasonable things they want wheras the RMT seem to use strikes
far too often. Heck, next week two of the issues they are having a
strike over a

1. "...our members believe is the first step to exporting the
call-centre work overseas"

So they aren't striking over an actual issue just an opinion of
something which may become an issue in the future.

2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within TFL?
Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should I, a
taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need doing
before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being made
redundant?

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL?
Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should I, a
taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need doing
before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made
redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes from
the quote that they are all being made redundant

London Uderground Song
 

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL? Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should I,
a taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need doing
before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes
from the quote that they are all being made redundant

So you don't know how many people work there and you don't know how many of
this unknown figure are losing thir jobs yet you feel qualified to complain
about "a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs"?

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possble that with redundacy
payments and the costs associated with hiring new people that it might
actually prove cheaper to put these people into some useful job somewhere,
even if it is "only" as a mmeber of station staff?

London Uderground Song
 

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL? Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should I,
a taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need doing
before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes
from the quote that they are all being made redundant

So you don't know how many people work there and you don't know how many
of
this unknown figure are losing thir jobs yet you feel qualified to
complain
about "a whole museum worth of staff to be found jobs"?

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possible that with
redundacy
payments and the costs associated with hiring new people that it might
actually prove cheaper to put these people into some useful job somewhere,
even if it is "only" as a member of station staff?

Agreed. There are never enough station and ticket-office staff, so they
should be redeployed wherever possible.

But more importantly: WTF are they doing to the LT Museum for it to take 18
months to be refurbished? Sounds like a pretty radical overhaul. I look
forward to seeing the end result. I'm glad I read that it was going to be
closed: I was thinking about going up to London some time soon and I was
planning to go there - haven't been for a few years. Do they still charge
for admission or has it gone free entry like the Science Museum? Are any of
the exhibits being moved to a temporary exhibition elsewhere for all that
time.

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for
18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL? Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should
I,
a taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need
doing
before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes
from the quote that they are all being made redundant

So you don't know how many people work there and you don't know how
many of
this unknown figure are losing thir jobs yet you feel qualified to
complain
about "a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs"?


I don't know how many people work there but it's a pretty big place so
it will be a non negligible amount.

Judging by the quote from the RMT it is all these staff who are being
made redundant.

I do feel qualified to make my point known, yes. In my opinion it
would be a waste of money to CREATE one extra un-needed job just
because you had someone who had to be doing something. To try and
find/make up jobs for several people would be an intollerable waste

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possble that with
redundacy
payments and the costs associated with hiring new people that it
might
actually prove cheaper to put these people into some useful job
somewhere,
even if it is "only" as a mmeber of station staff?

If it was *cheaper* then there wouldn't be an issue and conflict with
the unions would there?

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't anything
stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an application
form and applying is there?

London Uderground Song
 

"Chris!" wrote in message
ups.com...

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't anything
stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an application
form and applying is there?

Who actually employs the LT Museum staff? Is it LT (or whatever they're
called this week) themselves or is it a separate company. Even if the staff
get temporary jobs as station staff or get re-employed as museum staff after
the refurbishment, they've lost their continuity of service despite some of
them having worked there a long time.

London Uderground Song
 

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:28:49 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possible that with
redundacy
payments and the costs associated with hiring new people that it might
actually prove cheaper to put these people into some useful job somewhere,
even if it is "only" as a member of station staff?

If it is true that the staff are being made redundant then I think that
is crazy. As you say what about the need to recruit in future, retrain
etc. A proportion of the staff are highly knowledgeable and it would be
a nonsense to make them leave. However the TfL approach to staffing and
conditions is one of great contrasts - you can draw your own conclusions
as to what that means.

This may explain why the shop staff were deep in conversation about work
matters this lunchtime.

Agreed. There are never enough station and ticket-office staff, so they
should be redeployed wherever possible.

And there is plenty of other work requiring people - a £10bn investment
programme for a start.

But more importantly: WTF are they doing to the LT Museum for it to take 18
months to be refurbished? Sounds like a pretty radical overhaul. I look
forward to seeing the end result. I'm glad I read that it was going to be
closed: I was thinking about going up to London some time soon and I was
planning to go there - haven't been for a few years. Do they still charge
for admission or has it gone free entry like the Science Museum? Are any of
the exhibits being moved to a temporary exhibition elsewhere for all that
time.

I understand that they are enlarging the display space and creating a
theatre and other facilities. The building itself needs substantive
repairs to stop it decaying further.

http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/support/cgp.html

The shop will relocate to one of the units on the piazza. It closes
from late August so you should still be able to visit if you are coming
to London soon.

Charges still apply. Don't know what is happening to the exhibits but
I'd assume some will go to the Depot at Acton Town and will still be
accessible on the open weekends.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

London Uderground Song
 

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL? Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should
I, a taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need
doing before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes
from the quote that they are all being made redundant

So you don't know how many people work there and you don't know how
many of this unknown figure are losing thir jobs yet you feel
qualified to complain about "a whole musuem worth of staff to be
found jobs"?


I don't know how many people work there but it's a pretty big place so
it will be a non negligible amount.

Judging by the quote from the RMT it is all these staff who are being
made redundant.

I do feel qualified to make my point known, yes. In my opinion it
would be a waste of money to CREATE one extra un-needed job just
because you had someone who had to be doing something. To try and
find/make up jobs for several people would be an intollerable waste

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possble that with
redundacy payments and the costs associated with hiring new people
that it might actually prove cheaper to put these people into some
useful job somewhere, even if it is "only" as a mmeber of station
staff?

If it was *cheaper* then there wouldn't be an issue and conflict with
the unions would there?

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already employed
by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already
employed
by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?


So how much more does it cost to read an application form filled in by
someone rather than some form of transfer request?

London Uderground Song
 

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Why do people go on strike?

Because England are playing a match tonight?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

London Uderground Song
 

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already
employed by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?


So how much more does it cost to read an application form filled in by
someone rather than some form of transfer request?

You really don't have a clue as to what's involved in dismissing and hiring
staff do you?

Before coming on here and making your self look silly it might be worth
doing some basic research.

A bit late for you on this occasion but you might care to think about it
next time.

London Uderground Song
 

And how much does a driver get paid a year, why don't you enlighten us.

Kevin

London Uderground Song
 

In message .com,
writes
And how much does a driver get paid a year, why don't you enlighten us.

Kevin

I don't know who you are responding to or asking as you haven't quoted
anything, but the answer to your question is c£35 a year now with the
latest pay rise - not exactly a state secret though.

Oh, talking about strikes (which the song in question alludes to). In 3
years on the Underground I can honestly say I've not been out on strike
once, and there have only been 2 one day affairs in all that time
anyway. Hardly 'always out on strike' really?
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

London Uderground Song
 

Martin Underwood wrote:
"Chris!" wrote in message
ups.com...

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application
form and applying is there?

Who actually employs the LT Museum staff? Is it LT (or whatever
they're called this week) themselves or is it a separate company.
Even if the staff get temporary jobs as station staff or get
re-employed as museum staff after the refurbishment, they've lost
their continuity of service despite some of them having worked there
a long time.

The Museum comes under the TfL umbrella and recruitment is handled throught
the TfL human remains system, so I would conclude that they are TfL
employees.

London Uderground Song
 

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:27:36 GMT, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the NHS or
shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to work for or any
other frontline employee for the state of the company or organisation they
are employed by.

Really? When did nurses or the RCN last propose to strike on the day
of a major football match or an election?

--
Cheers,

Jason.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?

London Uderground Song
 

Jason wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:27:36 GMT, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the
NHS or
shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to work
for or any
other frontline employee for the state of the company or
organisation they
are employed by.

Really? When did nurses or the RCN last propose to strike on the day
of a major football match or an election?


Don't bother arguing with him... When he has run out of things to say
he resorts to personal attacks

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already
employed by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?


So how much more does it cost to read an application form filled in
by
someone rather than some form of transfer request?

You really don't have a clue as to what's involved in dismissing and
hiring
staff do you?

Ok so they have to be paid redundancy pay as well but they lose certain
rights from leaving and joining so it roughly cancels out or is better
for them. So why are they striking?




Before coming on here and making your self look silly it might be
worth
doing some basic research.

A bit late for you on this occasion but you might care to think about
it
next time.

London Uderground Song
 

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already
employed by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?


So how much more does it cost to read an application form filled in
by someone rather than some form of transfer request?

You really don't have a clue as to what's involved in dismissing and
hiring staff do you?

Ok so they have to be paid redundancy pay as well but they lose
certain rights from leaving and joining so it roughly cancels out or
is better for them. So why are they striking?


There is a difference between striking and threatening to strike.

London Uderground Song
 

Jason wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:27:36 GMT, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the
NHS or shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to
work for or any other frontline employee for the state of the
company or organisation they are employed by.

Really? When did nurses or the RCN last propose to strike on the day
of a major football match or an election?

I didn't say anything about striking, I referred to the state of the various
organisations.

London Uderground Song
 

Chris! wrote:
Jason wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:27:36 GMT, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the
NHS or shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen to
work for or any other frontline employee for the state of the
company or organisation they are employed by.

Really? When did nurses or the RCN last propose to strike on the day
of a major football match or an election?


Don't bother arguing with him... When he has run out of things to say
he resorts to personal attacks

Only on those people who's original posts are based on prejudice and
bigotry. Usually when people make the effort to look at both sides of an
argument they can generate a sensible discussion.

London Uderground Song
 

Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message .com,
writes
And how much does a driver get paid a year, why don't you enlighten
us.

Kevin

I don't know who you are responding to or asking as you haven't
quoted
anything, but the answer to your question is c£35 a year now with
the
latest pay rise - not exactly a state secret though.

Oh, talking about strikes (which the song in question alludes to).
In 3
years on the Underground I can honestly say I've not been out on
strike
once, and there have only been 2 one day affairs in all that time
anyway. Hardly 'always out on strike' really?

Theres been a number of threats of strike action to get LU to
capitulate
to some made up complaint. And lets not forget the classic drivers
strike
on the hammersmith and city line about that waste of space caught
playing
squash while he was supposedly off sick with an ankle injury and
getting
sacked. Boo hoo.

Still , this sort of unreasonable unionised action is fairly typical of
british blue collar industry in britain over the last 30 years. Which
is
probably why most of it ended up uncompetetive and closed down and our
coal & steel now comes from eastern europe and asia. Well done the
unions.
LU drivers are just lucky that they work for an infrastructure and not
an
industry or their overpaid backsides would be on the dole or in a call
centre by now too.

B2003

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:

There is a difference between striking and threatening to strike.

Erm yes. What is your point? Refer to my original post. According to
the RMT, evening standard and the BBC they ARE STRIKING next Thursday

London Uderground Song
 

Brimstone wrote:
Jason wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:27:36 GMT, "Brimstone"

wrote:

It was as funny as blaming doctors and nurse for the state of the
NHS or shop assistants for the state of the retailer they happen
to
work for or any other frontline employee for the state of the
company or organisation they are employed by.

Really? When did nurses or the RCN last propose to strike on the
day
of a major football match or an election?

I didn't say anything about striking, I referred to the state of the
various
organisations.

You were following up a comment on a song. The song starts off having
a go at people for striking on the tube. You make the comment that the
criticsms in the song (people striking on the tube and causing much
inconvinience to people) are no more valid than critcising Doctors for
health policy.

Refer to your previous posts